News

Published: 03 December 2020

Three High Court judges in a landmark UK court decision have ruled that it is highly unlikely that a child aged 13 or under would be competent to give consent to the administration of puberty blockers.

The court also ruled that it is “doubtful that a child aged 14 or 15 could understand and weigh the long-term risks and consequences of the administration of puberty blocking drugs.”

The case was brought by two claimants against Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust. One of the claimants is Keira Bell, an outspoken “detransitioner”.

Bell was prescribed puberty blockers at age 15 and said that the practice of prescribing puberty-blocking drugs to children under 18 was unlawful as they lacked competence to give valid consent to the treatment.

Bell was then prescribed cross-sex hormones to promote male characteristics before undergoing surgery.

She has subsequently “detransitioned” to live as her birth sex and become an outspoken critic of gender clinics.

“Given the long-term consequences of the clinical interventions at issue in this case, and given that the treatment is as yet innovative and experimental, the court recognised that clinicians may well regard these as cases where the authorisation of the court should be sought before starting treatment with puberty blocking drugs,” the judgment stated.

Bell reportedly said outside court after the legal victory that she hoped it signaled the end of gender clinics “playing God with our bodies [by] experimenting on the young and vulnerable with untested, harmful drugs”.

Published: 03 December 2020

If you can, cast your mind back to Spring 2017 – and the postal survey for the Great Marriage Debate.

Well it wasn’t exactly a “debate”. TV stations refused to air informative TV ads on the “No” case for the same-sex marriage survey. Newspapers gave huge coverage to the “Yes” case and very little on the other side of the story. The government did not distribute booklets setting out arguments for both “Yes” and “No” cases, as required for a formal referendum.

Madeline, a Canberra childcare worker (18), was sacked, merely for posting her support for traditional marriage on Facebook. Her boss said: “Today I fired a staff member who made it public knowledge that they feel ‘it’s okay to vote no’. Advertising your desire to vote no for same-sex marriage is, in my eyes, hate speech.”

Madeline was traumatised. “There are many other young people who share my views,” she said. “But they are too terrified to speak out.”

By November 2017, some 60 per cent of Australians had voted “Yes”. They believed that changing the marriage law would make LGBT people happy, but not alter anything else.

They were wrong.

As Christian lobbyist Lyle Shelton pointed out on 14 September last year:

News broke overnight that a Christian school in Ballarat is being sued by a former teacher, Rachel Colvin, because she does not agree with the school’s position on marriage.

She resigned over the issue after Ballarat Christian College re-iterated that it was committed to the Christian view of marriage – that marriage can only be between one man and one woman.

Parents send their children to Christian schools because they expect Christian schools and their staff to uphold the Christian view of marriage. But Colvin, a supporter of same-sex marriage, now wants the parent community and the school to bow to her vision for marriage.

She is trying to force this on the school by suing it under the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act.

During the marriage campaign, we said over and over again that redefining marriage in law would weaponise state-based anti-discrimination legislation. And it has.

Principal Ken Nuridin said: “Our College provides a high-quality Christian education in accordance with our beliefs.The complaint against Ballarat Christian College was settled out of court in March. The school has been able to retain its biblical marriage policy, but has had to pay significant legal expenses as well as an undisclosed amount to its former teacher to cover “damages and lost earnings”.

“The claim has taken an enormous cost in time and resources already – detracting from the ability of a small school like ours to focus on what is important, the education of our students.”

If this trend continues, parents who choose Christian schools for their children’s education are in trouble. The freedom to teach biblical values – and to employ staff who uphold those values – is under attack as never before.

In South Australia just this past week, the Liberal government has released its new Equal Opportunity (Religious Bodies) Amendment Bill 2020. It would remove the ability of any faith-based school to choose teachers and other staff in accordance with its religious beliefs.

It comes just before the Christmas-New Year break when people are busy with other concerns.

FamilyVoice is busy too. But we will be strongly urging the government to withdraw the bill, and to protect, not destroy, religious freedom.

Your prayers and financial support are especially needed at this time.

For family, faith and freedom

Peter Downie - National Director

FamilyVoice Australia

Published: 27 November 2020

Champion rugby player Israel Folau has had a tumultuous 19 months. In April last year on his personal Instagram account, he posted a blunt paraphrase of two verses in the Apostle Paul’s first letter to Christians in the Greek city of Corinth.

It was a grim warning to believers in that large and prosperous city, known for its temple prostitutes, drunkenness and promiscuity –a culture that may ring a few bells today.

But there is hope, as Paul goes on in verse 11: “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”

Folau also offered hope. In his Instagram post, he said: “Those that are living in Sin will end up in Hell unless you repent. Jesus Christ loves you and is giving you time to turn away from your sin and come to him.”

Folau had warned of Hell. And all hell broke loose.

Adulterers, thieves, drunks, swindlers and slanderers weren’t upset. But his mention of homosexuality – men who have sex with men – was like a red rag to a bull.

Folau was the Wallabies’ best player. But Rugby Australia sacked him – for stating his sincere religious belief, affirmed in a book treated with honour in every Australian court room.

As you probably know, Folau appealed his unfair dismissal and later won a significant out-of-court settlement. But he soon had another battle on his hands.

Sydney gay activist Garry Burns, who has made hundreds of complaints to the NSW Anti‑Discrimination Board over the years, lodged one against Israel Folau last December.

Burns claimed that Folau’s post vilified homosexuals. The Board initially accepted his complaint, but later rejected it, saying he had failed to keep the matter confidential and had sent numerous inappropriate emails to Folau’s lawyers.

NSW Anti-Discrimination Board president Annabelle Bennett said Burns’ complaint was “vexatious” and “a flagrant abuse of process such that no further actions should be taken”.

But Garry Burns did not give up. In April he appealed to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

Then last week there was good news.

On 18 November, the Tribunal rejected Mr Burns’ application. It found he was only doing it to get some funds to pay a $82,000 legal bill run up in another legal fight.

Tribunal chief Anne Britton said the “egregious nature of Mr Burns’ conduct” amounted to an abuse of process. He had sent “intemperate” emails to Folau’s legal team as well as disrespectful, intemperate and threatening emails to members of the Anti-Discrimination Board.

Israel Folau and others – including Bernard Gaynor, another victim of many Burns’ complaints – are praising God for this win.

We also give thanks for Mark Latham, whose campaign to reform the anti-discrimination complaint system has alerted other NSW MPs to the great injustices many people have suffered.

We pray that the Board and the Tribunal will continue to act with the wisdom they showed Mr Burns.

Peter Downie - National Director

FamilyVoice Australia

Published: 19 November 2020

The newly founded Australian Family Party is warning SA MPs that how they vote on abortion will impact preference allocations at the next state election.

The recently formed party has been established by Bob Day AO, who served as a senator for South Australia for the Family First party from 2014 – 2016.

South Australian MPs are currently debating the extreme Termination of Pregnancy Bill 2020 which allows abortion up until birth.

“How Members vote on this Bill will be of crucial importance to the Australian Family Party when making preferencing decisions at the next State election,” wrote Australian Family Party Federal Director Bob Day AO to SA MPs.

Day says that the lack of a conservative party has caused the Liberal Party to move to the left on social issues.

“The reality is, that without an alternative Christian/Conservative Party to vote for, the Liberals now feel liberated to pursue all the so-called ‘progressive’ policies of the left-of-centre parties – late term abortion, exclusion zones around abortion clinics, prostitution reforms, euthanasia etc etc.”

The Australian Family Party opposes abortion, euthanasia and prostitution.